Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s proposal for a second referendum to impose what would be a unilateral non-Indigenous recognition of First Peoples is politically smart — too smart by half.
Dutton’s concern is that his relentless opposition to a constitutional Voice to Parliament will wreck any chance the Liberals have of reclaiming teal seats at the next election, without which his task of securing even minority government is dramatically harder.
His solution is a second referendum on unilateral white recognition, which, along with a legislated Voice, will enable him to pitch to Yes supporters.
We know Dutton’s legislated Voice simply doesn’t stack up. Having campaigned ferociously against a constitutional Voice as a sinister elite plot, another layer of bureaucracy and a dangerous experiment, Dutton now pushing for a legislated rather than constitutionally enshrined Voice — in effect, rejecting the result of the referendum — looks downright bizarre.
But his unilateral white recognition is even worse. Dutton wants Australians — those who have presumably rejected recognition on the referendum date of October 14 2023 — to once again go to the polls and vote on recognition, this time regarding a model explicitly rejected by First Peoples.
Australia asked its First Peoples what form of recognition they wanted; they replied with Voice, Treaty, and Truth. Dutton’s recognition would dismiss this response as invalid, as unacceptable, as not good enough for non-Indigenous Australia, and supplant it with recognition of his own invention, one that in explicitly recognising First Peoples in the constitution explicitly rejects the idea that First Peoples should have any say in that process. It would be a constitutional oxymoron.
That it would also perpetuate business-as-usual, that it would be guaranteed to fail, that it would subject First Peoples to another degrading “debate” laden with racism like the one they’re experiencing now, that it would be a simple re-run of John Howard’s ludicrous 1999 effort to impose a constitutional preamble written by a white poet are also fundamental flaws.
But Dutton’s proposal will also split the No camp. The outright racist sections of the No camp — think the likes of the Institute of Public Affairs — reject any recognition of First Peoples, full stop. Because they adhere to the lie of terra nullius — or, perhaps, simply hate Indigenous peoples — they see First Peoples as just another minority group seeking to undermine white supremacy, rather than the people whose dispossession was the founding act of the Australian polity.
So for the IPA and their racist fellow-travellers, Dutton is now proposing not one but two referendums to deliver an outcome they fundamentally oppose — not to mention a legislated version of something they also reject.
It also contradicts one of their core messages, one they share with Dutton: if a constitutional Voice to Parliament is racially divisive — if it “re-racialises” Australia, to use Dutton’s word — how does any recognition, even a unilateral white recognition, do anything different?
Dutton has thus crystallised what were previously latent but fundamental contradictions on the No side — between out-and-out bigots and those who, for political reasons, have to seem unbigoted, between those driven by ideology and those by politics, by those who see the referendum purely as a culture war and those who regard the welfare of First Peoples as a significant issue.
The question for every No campaigner now is thus: do they support a second referendum to impose white recognition on First Peoples? The No camp is no longer just No, but it must be No-No, or No-Yes, like Dutton. There are three sides to the referendum now.
There are no such complications for the Yes side. October 14 will resolve the issue; the people will either have agreed to recognition in the form First Peoples have sought, or rejected it.
If the latter, there will end the process of Indigenous recognition for the first part of the 21st century. There will end the idea of a Voice to Parliament. There will end any pretence that Australia is not, almost uniquely in the world, a colonial state that continues to render invisible those it dispossessed and murdered as part of the process of state-creation.
It’s up to the Yes campaign to make sure every voter understands the contrast between Yes, No-No, and No-Yes, and to drive home the huge wedge Dutton’s political cleverness has exposed on his own side. The No campaign was always riddled with incoherence and self-contradiction; the opposition leader has now put those up in lights.
If any further proof was required that Dutton is genuinely brain-dead, this would have to be it.
I assume that he has realized that with the acquisition of Johnny Farnham”s “The Voice” his NO campaign is dead in the water……………….
…………and has made a seriously limp effort to use the lyrics to try and attack the YES campaign.
Presumably, he thinks that his audience are dumb enough not to notice that his new effort is diametrically opposed to his line so far.
His previous take was “If you don’t know, vote NO”………………
………..now apparently he is using the lyric “You’re the Voice, try and understand it” as an attack line.
That translates to “If you don’t know, FIND OUT”……………..
……..which is precisely the message the YES camp have been pushing.
……and if he is using lyrics, I’d imagine that
“We’re all someone’s daughter,
We’re all someone’s son.
How long can we look at each other,
Down the barrel of a gun?”
………rather sums up his sole tactic for getting elected.
The man is seriously stupid.
There is absolutely no point in trying to argue logic with Dutton, because he will just respond with FUD.
The YES campaign should just go full-bore with the “Feel-good Factor” which the song epitomizes……………..
………what they need is an ad campaign like “It’s Time” – every recognizable TV/Sport/Music face singing along to “The Voice”.
It would be a shoo-in…………..
I agree- maybe its happening….soon!
Dutton seems determined to lose the Teal seats for ever!
“The man is seriously stupid.”
Not really, he may be an average politician but he certainly isn’t an intelligent one. But then, in that respect he just mirrors almost all the Opposition.
I would suggest he couldn’t add up his fingers twice in succession and get the same answer…………………
Brain dead or a deep understanding of effective divisive politics is?
Hardly effective if he ends up splitting his own supporters……………..
(and Gina keeps him afloat)
It depends on whether he’s trying to appeal to traditional Liberal voters or disillusioned Labor voters.
This tactic has worked pretty well for Trump and the Brexiters.
How does underestimating a person – not just any person but the leader of the federal opposition – a good idea?
In Dutton’s case the jury is still out, but I’d be inclined to classify it as rat cunning. Assessing his deficiencies may not be so productive so much as just accepting he’s a danger to himself and everyone else and acting accordingly.
I don’t think they’re underestimating him… he’s been given credit, but every time he opens his mouth is like a shower of verbal diarrhoea. Although your comparison to Brexit and Trump are delightful.
It’s called ‘firehosing’.
Firehosing involves pushing out as many lies as possible as frequently as possible not with the aim of making people believe the lies but with the aim of robbing facts of their power so that reality is reduced to positioning and who can sell their position best.
It’s the same tactic used by populists all over the world, anti-vaxxers, climate change denialists, and Russian disinformation bots.
It’s been used to great effect and has helped deliver the unimaginable in the US, Britain and Australia – the Howard and Morrison governments are evidence that, contrary to popular beliefs, Australia is as, if not more, exposed to populism and fascism as the good auld U.S.of.A.
Would that be Gina, the ‘business-woman and philanthropist’ (in the words of the Murdoch tabloids)?
Would that be Gina, the ‘business-woman and philanthropist’ (in the words of the M-u-r-d-o-c-h tabloids)?
(Madbot is still touchy about the ‘M’ word.)
Love your work!!!
Ding dong
Admire you unbridled enthusiasm but it’s going to take a lot more than a schmaltzy ‘80s power ballad to turn this ship around ….have you seen the polls?
Have you seen who is running the Polls?………………
HWMNBN is waaaay out of touch.
Who has a landline any more?
Who answers their mobile to an unknown number?
I’d say the “Polls” reflect a very small subset of the very few subscribers HWMNBN has left…………….
It would be pretty embarrassing for the Yes campaign (and the species in general) if all it takes to convince people to vote for a proposition is a crap song from the 80’s.
Dutton appears to be offering as many reasons to vote No as various voters may need. Some don’t like the idea of one group getting preferential treatment in the Constitution so he argues that, some want more detail on the legislation so he cunningly tells people to go find out more (and they find there are no details). Most recently he’s offering another referendum. This is quite an intelligent tactic because it gives people who might feel a bit racist voting No a way out. It has hallmarks of the ‘Vote No to the politicians republic’ at the last referendum.
Dutton is no genius- but the Yes campaign is dead in the water.
And the Yes camp is not likely to recover whilst everyone thinks they’re cleverer than the No camp.
If the yes camp is so intelligent it should be able to properly prosecute its case without insults and name calling.
Right now the best it seems to be able to come up with is:
– in response to requests for details – “look up yourself!”
– in response to scepticism – “you stupid racist”
– in response to the mostly BS coming from the No camp – “liar, liar pants on fire”.
The finest minds indeed.
I’ve made the same offer to a number of vehement “NO” voters so far………………..
If you would care to come up with a list of reasons to vote “NO” in fifty words or less, I am quite happy to refute each point individually.
To date, the only responses I have received have been bluster, invective and attempts at diversion…………
……..but no-one has taken up the challenge.
Over to you.
There are plenty of reasons to vote No (shockingly many aren’t even racist), and there are plenty of refutations of those points. The point is, many of us aren’t convinced by those refutations.
One decent point is that there is simply no empirical evidence to suggest that *THIS* consultative body will somehow do what no other consultative body (extinct or extant) has managed to do before. Vague arguments about it being in the Constitution being some kind of wonder drug or ‘just trust me bro’ don’t cut it. To try and pretend that Aboriginal people have never been consulted on matters that effect them before is laughable, but somehow this body is going to make all the difference (cue, bUt We MaY aS wElL dO sOmEtHiNg).
“The point is, many of us aren’t convinced by those refutations.”………….
There is no known cure for Trump Withdrawal Syndrome.
I’ll leave you to your fantasy universe.
As a life long left wing voter – thanks for the good laugh!
“Anyone who doesn’t think I’m correct 100% of the time is clearly a moron/ racist/ trump supporter”
People voting No are not stupid. The No voters of my acquaintance are choosing to vote No for any number of reasons. How does one respond to:
You are only voting YES because you don’t like (insert whatever you like here)
YES will not help the indigenous, they have to help themselves
YES is a plot to allow more government control, look what happened during Covid
YES is racist, don’t they have the vote already
Fix the economy first
Ad Nauseum. Maybe, perhaps, I have managed to sell YES to some non-committed voters, however I am no match for all the rubbish out there.
I am sincerely asking…what would you do? Because, from where I stand, out political leadership is divided on this, so why expect anything different from the hoi polloi?
So it is confirmed that his opposition was solely for the purpose of opposing Albo, nothing to do with what the first nations were seeking.
“Keeping the ALP out of Power” is one of the founding principles of the Liberal Party, first enunciated in 1943.
They have never advanced from that stance.
It is, however, helpful to remember the first responses to the Uluru Statement from the then PM, MBT, and his then deputy, BJ. Third chamber was their knee-jerk response.
While I agree with every word of Bernard’s piece, and also with your conclusion, we need to remember that all L and NP leaders have been quick to reject what Indigenous Australians have sought.
I wonder if MBT ever regrets a) his downgrading of the NBN from what it should have been; b) calling the Uluru Statement a 3rd chamber of Parlt; c) lumping in together Immigration, ASIO, AFP, Biosecurity Australia and Customs into Home Affairs: and d) giving it to Dutton.
As Keating said, an intelligent man with no political nous or judgement.
I suspect that former politicians are not much given to regrets. I think MBT’s best (only good?) work was in the Spycatcher publication case – well before he entered parliament.
He sold his soul and testes to become PM. Maybe his ability to feel regret went as part of the package.
MT offered a summary of his time to the media only days ago.
Not a word of mea culpa.
Dutton seems to be moving towards a reworking of John Howard’s horribly successful slogan from 2001, shifting from immigration to recognition, but just as exclusionary:
Knowing full well there is still a very substantive ageing &/or regional constituent base who will vote ‘No’, including those swayed by a generation of eugenics based agitprop from RW MSM cartel.
Like Brexit and Trump lines in the sand, the LNP, IPA etc. need to leverage the same constituents now before the ‘great replacement’; at least one is aware of good people around the LNP who will not support ‘No’.
Dutton suffers from deprivation syndrome and yet the media keeps giving him airtime. If his name is mentioned I will take scant notice it is such a waste of time reading about this passive beligerent fool.
Recognition only is just for White Australia. No First Nations’ people want a White supremacist document to recognise what they already know. It’s a meaningless gesture.
So, you’re advocating we do nothing.
If we have very little or nothing to date, we should just continue along that path because we have done nothing up to date.
I think they’re highlighting the cost of not doing enough.
No. I am saying recognition only is an expensive, meaningless gesture that serves White Australia. It’s not a meaningful pursuit.
While it’s true that it serves White Australia in that it may wake those of us who need to be awaked, it also serves the blackfellas, > 83% want it.
And the reason the balckfellas want it is because the whitefellas have made such an enormous hash of it since invasion.
Please articulate ( rationally, not just in your usual speculative vein ) why you don’t want blackfellas to be listened to in a way that they find acceptable ?
Very funny. The Uluru statement says what was wanted by Aboriginal Australians, and it is hilarious you think Dutton knows better.
My greatest fear is that in a post-Ref ‘yes’ world you will be proven dead right, PS. I truly hope we’re both wrong. Rgds.
“Recognition only is just for White Australia. “
Of course it is. Are you saying they should recognise themselves?
Actually they do. It’s called the Voice, taken from the Statement from the Heart.
And you’re right about it being for white people. It’s a cry for white people to start treating their fellow citizens and brothers and sisters fairly.
I think you’re talking about Duttons 2nd referendum proposal? @Privleged Starvation
Really !
What’s your answer to the 83% of First Nation People that disagree with you ?